Mail Online, March 31, 2012:An Oregon University professor has controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism. Sociology and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard wrote a paper criticising non-believers, suggesting that doubters need to be have a ‘sickness’. The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour - 'If you don't believe in climate change you must be sick': Oregon professor likens skepticism to racism

University of Western Australia, (in press):We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r is approx. 0.80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists - NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Center for Industrial Progress, July 29, 2012:A few days ago on Twitter, I invitedBill McKibbento choose any catastrophic global warming believer he wanted and debate me and Dr. Eric Dennis at Duke University on the topic of “the morality of fossil fuels.” We would pay him $10,000. McKibben did not respond. In case he was unfamiliar with our work and doubted our intellectual seriousness, we prepared a systematic one-and-a-half-hour presentation on how to detect pseudoscience. We illustrated our points using McKibben’s celebrated Rolling Stone article, “The Terrifying New Math of Global Warming,” exposing it as the antithesis of science. We then exposed the false philosophies and corrupt incentives that lead Bill McKibben and others to propagate destructive ideas under the mantle of science - A Chalenge to Bill McKibben

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka

Forbes, September 20, 2012:...what really makes this a very bad paper indeed is that we have not been given that basic numerical information by which we could repeat the sums and calculations that they have done. Or as the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridgenote: "I am grateful for the authors for publishing this paper, as it provides a fine case study for teaching a statistics class about poor design, analysis and reporting. I shall start using it immediately" - Monsanto's GM Corn And Cancer In Rats: Real Scientists Deeply Unimpressed. Politics Not Science Perhaps?

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka

The word used to name the method of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein has also been used to rationalize some of the most destructive political policies in human history, such as socialism and population control. The Nazis invoked the once-renowned “science” of eugenics to justify a Holocaust of “scientifically inferior” races.

How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public.

By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science.

Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.

1.They use manipulative language

If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist.

No one denies “climate change.” “Climate change” is a constant. The “climate,” which is an averaging of weather over long timespan, is an inherently changing phenomenon. There’s no “climate non-change.”

Don’t tell me “Oh, we all know what we mean by climate change”–because I don’t, and neither do you.

“Climate change” is a manipulative, rubber term used to mean anything from “the climate changes” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate at least a tiny amount” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate for the better” (yes, that’s possible) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous” (which much fewer people agree with) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous and the only response is to stop using fossil fuels but also incoherently oppose nuclear power and hydroelectric power while advocating the worst-performing energy technologies, solar and wind.”

Climate Scientologists are usually advocates of the last, bizarre position. Since they can’t argue for that view honestly and directly, they dishonestly name their view “climate change.” That’s the equivalent of a eugenics advocate calling his view “evolution.” Which is, in fact, exactly what eugenics advocates did. And just as we needed more thinkers back then, so we need more Climate Thinkers today.

Read the rest of The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion at Forbes.